No, we will simply pass a regulation or law and airlines will comply.
That’s the way things happen in the real world.
We will erect barriers to trade. And the trade will go elsewhere.
That’s the way things happen in the real world.
When that trade is, in this instance, flight routes into the UK how exactly do they take those elsewhere? Are they going to fly to another UK on your fantasy planet Earth?
Problem gambling is something I hadn't come across before until one day a couple of years ago someone close to me called and asked if we could meet. Their partner had gambled £29,000. It was apparently a simple thing that could be done on a mobile phone. I wasn't really interested in the mechanics. Apparently he had been a bit depressed and it quickly mounted up. He had and has a good job. I took the view that it was only money and it could be sorted. Their relationship was a matter for them and as far as I know it's never happened again. But I never thought to blame the online bookies whoever they were or whatever the game they had peddled but the big question for me was how he managed to get that sort of credit so easily
My friend with the gambling problem is dead now, dying at the age of 50 from his other vice of smoking.
I knew him from school, his family being farmworkers, who lived in a mobile home in a field with no plumbing. He left school to work in a tractor repair shop aged 16. The poorest family that I have ever known personally.
He was intelligent, and while the rest of our group carried on at school, he was the one earning so the only one with money. We occasionally would have the odd poker game, but his real addiction was fruit machines. Each Friday and Saturday night he would buy some ciggies and put his wages in the fruit machine. He didn't drink or take drugs like the rest of us, so selective in his addictions. Then he would live off his girlfriend for a week, before his next paypacket, pay her back, then straight to the fruit machines again. It was a xsource of constant arguments between them, though he was a kind and gentle soul otherwise. This went on for some years before I went abroad and lost touch for a few decades.
Internet gambling is so accessible and instant that it would be catnip to such a personality.
Though I know of addictive gambling and I agree that your story sounds more typical if my brush with it told me anything it's that that's not what it was. When the story was tearfully poured out I was terrified that he'd got this terrible 'addiction' about which I knew little. But I'm guessing it was more naive than that and it was very brief.
Apparently a few of his friends played the same game(?) and my interest (his partner) and the partners of these other guys thought nothing of it. It was just fun. No real money involved. Maybe he was just unlucky because in no time there was the big confession and they had to remortgage the house. I felt it was an expensive mistake and not an addiction and I was grateful for that.
Roger, not so simple if you don't have a house to remortgage and get out easily.
Suicides in general have been trending up over the last 10 years but the key thing is that absolutely massive dip in the 2020 Q2 figures with no "bounce back" in Q3.
Obviously these numbers are subject to revision, 2020's numbers were only recently declared final, but compared to 2019 suicides are down overall so far with lockdown have a positive impact.
While I agree that this doesn't look at all like a 'suicide spike', I note that the ONS bulletin on this says "These numbers should be interpreted with caution. It is likely that the lower number of suicides registered in this period reflects the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the coroner’s service in England and Wales, for example, delays to inquests caused by the service adapting to social distancing measures. It is unlikely that the reduction in registered deaths reflects a genuine reduction in the number of suicides." So it's probably not the case that the lockdown was somehow having a suicide-reduction effect.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
You can inspect your credit record directly (or indirectly through the MSE service) and it would be worth doing so just to check there hasn't been some very recent irregular activity.
Applications in themselves can affect scoring, so I am assuming you haven't applied for lots of other loans/cards/accounts recently?
'Three-figure income'?
I checked - still excellent. The only negative points listed are that they don't think i'm on the electoral register (I am, but not the public one) and I don't have a mortgage. (3-figure - £125K.)
NS&I may be the answer, but the main purpose of the savings is to help a vulnerable relative to buy a house so I can't tie them down. When I klast looked the NS&I schemes had changed so you had to tie down for 2 years. Hadn't thought of premium bonds though.
Anyway, thanks everyone!
I think the problem may be the electoral register snafu. (Relates to money laundering checks.)
I`d look into this if I were you. Write to Experian.
Yes, that's quite possible. National Lottery uses register verification when you try to register a new address, and always refuses mine, I believe due to the complicated address history of my house, which has at times been separate flats and switched about from name to number, ending up with a number for a road it isn't actually in. The banks must have access to similar processes and being off the register might come up as a red flag. Although, that said, my own particular problem only seems a difficulty for the National Lottery, which I hardly ever use anyway.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
You can inspect your credit record directly (or indirectly through the MSE service) and it would be worth doing so just to check there hasn't been some very recent irregular activity.
Applications in themselves can affect scoring, so I am assuming you haven't applied for lots of other loans/cards/accounts recently?
'Three-figure income'?
I checked - still excellent. The only negative points listed are that they don't think i'm on the electoral register (I am, but not the public one) and I don't have a mortgage. (3-figure - £125K.)
NS&I may be the answer, but the main purpose of the savings is to help a vulnerable relative to buy a house so I can't tie them down. When I klast looked the NS&I schemes had changed so you had to tie down for 2 years. Hadn't thought of premium bonds though.
Anyway, thanks everyone!
I think the problem may be the electoral register snafu. (Relates to money laundering checks.)
I`d look into this if I were you. Write to Experian.
Virgin may have rejected you if you have another CC for which they provide the backoffice.
I think one way to go some way to check is to look at the offers on Money Saving Expert, and see if the Virgin ones are greyed out once you have entered your details.
Jesus are we so far down the post-truth hole that we’re angry that a committee said No Deal was a bad idea
How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?
I suspect that you are actually correct. However, the Committee rather than showing Johnson's hand of all the cards, are nervous that he might accidentally fall into no deal Brexit over a handful of mackerel.
That is ultimately the PM's decision.
As it always was.
This is like an incredibly protracted corporate deal, which it is essential for the company to conclude, getting down to a handful of the toughest issues - and then a couple of the non-execs issue a public report criticising your negotiations to date and telling you - and the Board - "Just sign the bloody deal on offer. You will never get anything better."
With whom do you think the shareholders are going to be pissed off?
You might just be over analysing the negotiation process and maybe, over estimating Frost's negotiating ability.
Unless of course the whole charade is a theatrical performance to demonstrate Johnson's genius at snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. Not in itself beyond the realms of probability.
"You might just be over analysing the negotiation process"
Possibly. But as a negotiator of 25 years experience doing 9-figure deals - who helped take a company from start-up to the edge of the FTSE 100 in five years - I could just have more insight that many of the gum-bumpers here and in Committee....
Or you could just be a jingoistic Brexiteer who is blind to reason and talking out your arse.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
You can inspect your credit record directly (or indirectly through the MSE service) and it would be worth doing so just to check there hasn't been some very recent irregular activity.
Applications in themselves can affect scoring, so I am assuming you haven't applied for lots of other loans/cards/accounts recently?
'Three-figure income'?
I checked - still excellent. The only negative points listed are that they don't think i'm on the electoral register (I am, but not the public one) and I don't have a mortgage. (3-figure - £125K.)
NS&I may be the answer, but the main purpose of the savings is to help a vulnerable relative to buy a house so I can't tie them down. When I klast looked the NS&I schemes had changed so you had to tie down for 2 years. Hadn't thought of premium bonds though.
Anyway, thanks everyone!
Government have recently massively slashed premium bond pay outs and also NS&I saving rates.
PBs were cut, but not by so much. My guess is that NS&I know they have lots of inertia holders - like my mother who, despite modest total savings, has always held a lot of PBs, going back years. If they slashed PB rates dramatically and prize winnings dried up for the larger holders, they could lose people they'll never get back.
Elsewhere NS&I rates are laughable. Someone there must see a difference between paying 0.1% and 0.01%; to customers it just looks like they are having a laugh.
Their remit is quite confused and confusing. In July they were asked to bring in an extra £29bn in savings by the govt due to Covid so had very attractive rates for a while, but they ended up getting too much of the market share and distorting the market (against another part of their remit) so then have gone for equally unattractive rates to deter new customers.
No, we will simply pass a regulation or law and airlines will comply.
That’s the way things happen in the real world.
We will erect barriers to trade. And the trade will go elsewhere.
That’s the way things happen in the real world.
When that trade is, in this instance, flight routes into the UK how exactly do they take those elsewhere? Are they going to fly to another UK on your fantasy planet Earth?
Well, Brexiters do keep telling us there's a whole galaxy of planets out there with massive opportunities for growing trade that we're not currently exploiting...
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
You can inspect your credit record directly (or indirectly through the MSE service) and it would be worth doing so just to check there hasn't been some very recent irregular activity.
Applications in themselves can affect scoring, so I am assuming you haven't applied for lots of other loans/cards/accounts recently?
'Three-figure income'?
I checked - still excellent. The only negative points listed are that they don't think i'm on the electoral register (I am, but not the public one) and I don't have a mortgage. (3-figure - £125K.)
NS&I may be the answer, but the main purpose of the savings is to help a vulnerable relative to buy a house so I can't tie them down. When I klast looked the NS&I schemes had changed so you had to tie down for 2 years. Hadn't thought of premium bonds though.
Anyway, thanks everyone!
I think the problem may be the electoral register snafu. (Relates to money laundering checks.)
I`d look into this if I were you. Write to Experian.
Virgin may have rejected you if you have another CC for which they provide the backoffice.
I think one way to go some way to check is to look at the offers on Money Saving Expert, and see if the Virgin ones are greyed out once you have entered your details.
Clydesdale, Yorkshire Bank (not ybs) and Northern Rock have all folded in with Virgin at various times
Jesus are we so far down the post-truth hole that we’re angry that a committee said No Deal was a bad idea
How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?
I suspect that you are actually correct. However, the Committee rather than showing Johnson's hand of all the cards, are nervous that he might accidentally fall into no deal Brexit over a handful of mackerel.
That is ultimately the PM's decision.
As it always was.
This is like an incredibly protracted corporate deal, which it is essential for the company to conclude, getting down to a handful of the toughest issues - and then a couple of the non-execs issue a public report criticising your negotiations to date and telling you - and the Board - "Just sign the bloody deal on offer. You will never get anything better."
With whom do you think the shareholders are going to be pissed off?
There was the old saying when quoting for a job that if you get it be thankful because only you know you'd have done it for half and only they know they'd have paid double.
I`m seeing an old friend today who - I know for sure - will be boring the heck out of me with the conspiracy theory that "they" (he may finger Bill Gates) have put microchips in the vaccines.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
I`m seeing an old friend today who - I know for sure - will be boring the heck out of me with the conspiracy theory that "they" (he may finger Bill Gates) have put microchips in the vaccines.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
Tell him to look carefully in the vial and the syringe, and see if he can see the microchip. If he can’t, it’s obviously invisible to stop people getting concerned and refusing the vaccine not there.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
You can inspect your credit record directly (or indirectly through the MSE service) and it would be worth doing so just to check there hasn't been some very recent irregular activity.
Applications in themselves can affect scoring, so I am assuming you haven't applied for lots of other loans/cards/accounts recently?
'Three-figure income'?
I checked - still excellent. The only negative points listed are that they don't think i'm on the electoral register (I am, but not the public one) and I don't have a mortgage. (3-figure - £125K.)
NS&I may be the answer, but the main purpose of the savings is to help a vulnerable relative to buy a house so I can't tie them down. When I klast looked the NS&I schemes had changed so you had to tie down for 2 years. Hadn't thought of premium bonds though.
Anyway, thanks everyone!
My finances are on a tiny scale compared to yours, but nevertheless I have always been solvent and, like you, was very surprised to find an application rejected because of credit rating.
The answer that was eventually given to me was that paying off my credit card bill in full every month meant that I had no history of managing debt, which seems to be a demerit in terms of credit rating.
I`m seeing an old friend today who - I know for sure - will be boring the heck out of me with the conspiracy theory that "they" (he may finger Bill Gates) have put microchips in the vaccines.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
Not necessarily a need for internal power source (see rfid) for near monitoring. Better counter, if your friend has a smartphone might be to ask why bother, given they willingly carry a tracking decice everywhere
I`m seeing an old friend today who - I know for sure - will be boring the heck out of me with the conspiracy theory that "they" (he may finger Bill Gates) have put microchips in the vaccines.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
Ask him, where the bit on which the microchip plugs into, and where all the wiring from it to the brain etc., are?
I`m seeing an old friend today who - I know for sure - will be boring the heck out of me with the conspiracy theory that "they" (he may finger Bill Gates) have put microchips in the vaccines.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
The best retort I have seen is to list all the ways they can already track you if they were so minded (credit cards, social media, phones etc) and then ask why they would need to spend all that money on a vaccine to do what they can already do much more easily.
I`m seeing an old friend today who - I know for sure - will be boring the heck out of me with the conspiracy theory that "they" (he may finger Bill Gates) have put microchips in the vaccines.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
Dont counter it directly. Drill down and turn the questions to him instead. "Why dont they just put the chips in our food or water? Or flu jabs?", "Why dont the FBI arrest Gates?", "Why dont any of the countries with their competing interests speak out about it?", "How do they keep all those people who must know about it quiet?" etc
No, we will simply pass a regulation or law and airlines will comply.
That’s the way things happen in the real world.
We will erect barriers to trade. And the trade will go elsewhere.
That’s the way things happen in the real world.
When that trade is, in this instance, flight routes into the UK how exactly do they take those elsewhere? Are they going to fly to another UK on your fantasy planet Earth?
Well, Brexiters do keep telling us there's a whole galaxy of planets out there with massive opportunities for growing trade that we're not currently exploiting...
Um no they don't. Scott is just being a f**kwit as usual. Best not join him.
I`m seeing an old friend today who - I know for sure - will be boring the heck out of me with the conspiracy theory that "they" (he may finger Bill Gates) have put microchips in the vaccines.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
The best retort I have seen is to list all the ways they can already track you if they were so minded (credit cards, social media, phones etc) and then ask why they would need to spend all that money on a vaccine to do what they can already do much more easily.
And for thatr matter, how does the chip know whom it inhabits? It's not as if they program the chip before injecting it. They just take a few drops out of the phial at a time (AIUI).
How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?
Once again Brexiteers outraged by a statement of the bleeding obvious.
We need a deal. It must be done now.
Neither of these statements is controversial, unless your head is up your ass.
But "it must be done now" is only because the Johnson/Cummings/Gove dream team refuse to even consider an additional extension due to the covid crisis.
Any half rational person facing the situation we are in would roll these discussions on until this time next year. It would still be completed well in time for 2024 when Johnson faces the voters again.
We needed a deal months ago. Even if one materialises tomorrow Q1 21 will be fucked.
Yep. When the deal is announced it will be clear it could easily have been done months ago. The last minute shenanigans aspect - and maintaining the public and commentariat fear of no deal - is to help Johnson politically. It will create relief and the optics of battling to the wire with the EU and late concessions being wrung. Also a deal announced a long time before end of Transition would have given more time for critical scrutiny of the detail, not something Johnson would welcome. So, sure, it makes sense from Johnson's point of view to do things this way. It's objectively crazy, though, and unfair on many people. As you say, and as Rochdale's post explains, the effect is to inject the "Deal" outcome with some of the chaos of "No Deal".
With regards to Marquee's snarl about the Brexit committee - surely Benn saying what is self-evident upsetting people like you IS the story.
In diplomacy world you can negotiate up until the deadline which is New Year's Eve. In trading world the deadline is in the past. No deal was agreed so no deal is in effect. There is a small window of opportunity to try and shift stuff across the border before the threatened tariffs kick in and before the real standards and customs checks start. Combine that with the impacts of Covid and the usual logistical challenge of Christmas and our borders are essentially under siege.
Here's the key point. For days now we have seen vast queues of vehicles heading both for the channel AND the Irish Sea, with a similar queue in France. When these vehicles arrive at the port they have to do no paperwork. No standards checks. No customs inspections. I'm sure that processing time will have slowed a little from the usual couple of minutes but its still fast when you eventually get there. At an external EU border with full customs the checks take an average of 45 minutes. Which is why the queues often are 20 hours plus on either side of the border.
We can't take back control of the French border and the Kent queues are for vehicles which will be checked and inspected in France. Our own border needs emergency funding to try to be ready for JULY - Dover asked for £33m and was given one-THOUSANDTH of the funds - £33k. Saying that we are not ready for something which has already been actualised and is causing utter chaos is like pointing at the blue sky and correctly saying it is blue. Hardly something for Brexity alt-fact people to get upset about yet upset they are.
EU trucks will largely not be coming to the UK in few weeks. Drivers get paid by the kilometre, they don't get paid when sat in endless queues. If you go on Twitter you will see photos of signs on EU based trucks saying that they do not serve the UK. That is the new reality - we have cut ourselves off from our main supply chain counterparty. Nor can we sign a last minute EU deal to waive all tariffs and avoid the chaos. The trucks will still have to stop for inspection and paperwork. An average of 45 minues vs the current 2 minutes. Which would tie vehicles up in day long queues if the drivers and the logistics firms were stupid enough to send vehicles which they aren't.
So enjoy this last Christmas.
Dover's error was not to involve Chris Grayling, he seems to be able to access Government money for the port authorities he represents.
Dover getting £33,000 instead of £33 million looks like a clerical error, like someone forgot to alter the units when typing "33".
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
It’s the “other matters” which is meaningful.
Current account business a loss leader. They looked at your profile and she and decided they couldn’t make money out of you.
Are there betting markets on the smoothness of the Brexit transition at the end of the year, what will happen at ports etc?
I have not found any.
£:$?
I've been on that for a while, riding the rise as traders anticipate a deal. I expect that when the deal comes there will be an upward blip and that is the time to switch positions - it'll be a case that proves the old adage of buying the rumour and selling the news.
Edit/ the sell position doesn't look one to hold for long, though - there are good reasons for expecting medium term $ weakness which make selling the bet less attractive. In the short term if Brexit looks problematic the £ will take a dip.
Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"
It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.
When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?
It was a deliberate choice
I don’t know if you have school age kids, but having schools closed was massively destructive to their education, mental health and life chances.
Closing everything else to keep schools open would have been a price worth paying
Yes I have a school age child. I have talked extensively on here about the challenges of having a spouse of the shielding list as well as having a school age child.
You are going to need to produce some cites on the "massively destructive to their mental health" when the only studies that have been done say that school age children were less stressed and more relaxed over lockdown.
Also we didn't close everything else to keep schools open. That would be a decision I could understand. Instead we opened everything and the schools.
The point of my last paragraph is that schools have a large impact on r0, but there are the first - and if necessary only - thing you open. The fact that the government screwed up is a different point
Well indeed, the point is not that schools were opened. It is that schools were opened and then the government went to inordinate lengths to pretend opening schools has no effect on R which even the most cursory glance at the data shows to be nonsense.
Covid is no real danger to young people. That being the case, there is surely no reason whatever to deny them the human right to a good and uninterrupted education.
One problem with that is you need to have teachers providing that education, and Covid is a danger to a significant number of us.
Yes Alastair, but is it ethical to bet on a civil war? Trump's exit date may depend on one.
If there is a US civil war we are all inevitably betting on it with our pensions, investments, jobs and perhaps more if it spills over. The tiny increase in that betting from political betting is irrelevant.
With regards to Marquee's snarl about the Brexit committee - surely Benn saying what is self-evident upsetting people like you IS the story.
In diplomacy world you can negotiate up until the deadline which is New Year's Eve. In trading world the deadline is in the past. No deal was agreed so no deal is in effect. There is a small window of opportunity to try and shift stuff across the border before the threatened tariffs kick in and before the real standards and customs checks start. Combine that with the impacts of Covid and the usual logistical challenge of Christmas and our borders are essentially under siege.
Here's the key point. For days now we have seen vast queues of vehicles heading both for the channel AND the Irish Sea, with a similar queue in France. When these vehicles arrive at the port they have to do no paperwork. No standards checks. No customs inspections. I'm sure that processing time will have slowed a little from the usual couple of minutes but its still fast when you eventually get there. At an external EU border with full customs the checks take an average of 45 minutes. Which is why the queues often are 20 hours plus on either side of the border.
We can't take back control of the French border and the Kent queues are for vehicles which will be checked and inspected in France. Our own border needs emergency funding to try to be ready for JULY - Dover asked for £33m and was given one-THOUSANDTH of the funds - £33k. Saying that we are not ready for something which has already been actualised and is causing utter chaos is like pointing at the blue sky and correctly saying it is blue. Hardly something for Brexity alt-fact people to get upset about yet upset they are.
EU trucks will largely not be coming to the UK in few weeks. Drivers get paid by the kilometre, they don't get paid when sat in endless queues. If you go on Twitter you will see photos of signs on EU based trucks saying that they do not serve the UK. That is the new reality - we have cut ourselves off from our main supply chain counterparty. Nor can we sign a last minute EU deal to waive all tariffs and avoid the chaos. The trucks will still have to stop for inspection and paperwork. An average of 45 minues vs the current 2 minutes. Which would tie vehicles up in day long queues if the drivers and the logistics firms were stupid enough to send vehicles which they aren't.
So enjoy this last Christmas.
Dover's error was not to involve Chris Grayling, he seems to be able to access Government money for the port authorities he represents.
Dover getting £33,000 instead of £33 million looks like a clerical error, like someone forgot to alter the units when typing "33".
Or a mark of Grayling's genius when negotiating with his friends.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
You can inspect your credit record directly (or indirectly through the MSE service) and it would be worth doing so just to check there hasn't been some very recent irregular activity.
Applications in themselves can affect scoring, so I am assuming you haven't applied for lots of other loans/cards/accounts recently?
'Three-figure income'?
I checked - still excellent. The only negative points listed are that they don't think i'm on the electoral register (I am, but not the public one) and I don't have a mortgage. (3-figure - £125K.)
NS&I may be the answer, but the main purpose of the savings is to help a vulnerable relative to buy a house so I can't tie them down. When I klast looked the NS&I schemes had changed so you had to tie down for 2 years. Hadn't thought of premium bonds though.
Anyway, thanks everyone!
My finances are on a tiny scale compared to yours, but nevertheless I have always been solvent and, like you, was very surprised to find an application rejected because of credit rating.
The answer that was eventually given to me was that paying off my credit card bill in full every month meant that I had no history of managing debt, which seems to be a demerit in terms of credit rating.
Good morning, everyone.
Yes, I have that problem. Paying off debt speedily makes for a bad credit score. While they don't want defaulters, they do want people who rollover debt, and pay out loads in interest.
I`m seeing an old friend today who - I know for sure - will be boring the heck out of me with the conspiracy theory that "they" (he may finger Bill Gates) have put microchips in the vaccines.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
The best retort I have seen is to list all the ways they can already track you if they were so minded (credit cards, social media, phones etc) and then ask why they would need to spend all that money on a vaccine to do what they can already do much more easily.
And for thatr matter, how does the chip know whom it inhabits? It's not as if they program the chip before injecting it. They just take a few drops out of the phial at a time (AIUI).
I was trying to work out how to say this for my second paragraph but gave up in the end. You do it very succinctly. The whole idea that vaccines could be used for mass monitoring of individuals is idiotic.
Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"
It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.
When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?
And looking at it, it didn’t at all address causality direction.
We can phrase the same findings like this: community infection levels tended to match infection levels found in local schools.
And then it looks quite damning rather than reassuring.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
With the rates you are getting, is it worth the hassle vs parking it all at National Savings?
Lol. Most NS&I rates are now 0.01%!
Premium bonds are fine at 1% and part of National Savings. Takes time to beat that without extra risk.
You can compare to a football goalscorer market, where most bookies settle according to the Press Association announced result - and any subsequent decision about who the goal is really awarded to is ignored. You might be annoyed if the player you backed is later awarded a goal, but the rules are clear.
Perhaps Betfair, more used to sports betting, had something like this in mind. They could have defined it as projected winner of EC when eg ABC, NBC and Fox News all agree on this, with further rules on how to handle it if they don't all agree. This would avoid having to wait for any court cases, coups, deaths, resignations, alien invasions - but would need to be clearly highlighted to anyone betting.
IMO the phrasing of projected result needs to be read in connection with the next sentence about faithless electors. They’re not going to pay out based on what media companies say, but rather on the certified results from the States, noting who the electors are *supposed* to vote for when the EC meets.
Except they didn't settle on the certified results. Those were known well before December 14th.
Certification can change until 14 December actually. As of 14 December it is finalised and locked.
"Subsequent event". Should Pereiro backers have been able to claim a winning betslip for the 2006 Tour De France ?
Any events related to counting like court cases, recounts etc prior to 14/12 were PRIOR to the EC not subsequent to it.
The question is whether their statement now encourages the other side to hold out, sensing (wrongly I think) weakness on our side. I think it does and so gives a push towards your 'disastrous no-deal'.
We are weak
No amount of bluff and bluster from BoZo can hide that
We are not.
No amount of bed wetting from you and your ilk will change that.
I`m seeing an old friend today who - I know for sure - will be boring the heck out of me with the conspiracy theory that "they" (he may finger Bill Gates) have put microchips in the vaccines.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
No. Consider the NFC chip in credit cards, for instance, where the power is provided by the device that reads them.
With regards to Marquee's snarl about the Brexit committee - surely Benn saying what is self-evident upsetting people like you IS the story.
In diplomacy world you can negotiate up until the deadline which is New Year's Eve. In trading world the deadline is in the past. No deal was agreed so no deal is in effect. There is a small window of opportunity to try and shift stuff across the border before the threatened tariffs kick in and before the real standards and customs checks start. Combine that with the impacts of Covid and the usual logistical challenge of Christmas and our borders are essentially under siege.
Here's the key point. For days now we have seen vast queues of vehicles heading both for the channel AND the Irish Sea, with a similar queue in France. When these vehicles arrive at the port they have to do no paperwork. No standards checks. No customs inspections. I'm sure that processing time will have slowed a little from the usual couple of minutes but its still fast when you eventually get there. At an external EU border with full customs the checks take an average of 45 minutes. Which is why the queues often are 20 hours plus on either side of the border.
We can't take back control of the French border and the Kent queues are for vehicles which will be checked and inspected in France. Our own border needs emergency funding to try to be ready for JULY - Dover asked for £33m and was given one-THOUSANDTH of the funds - £33k. Saying that we are not ready for something which has already been actualised and is causing utter chaos is like pointing at the blue sky and correctly saying it is blue. Hardly something for Brexity alt-fact people to get upset about yet upset they are.
EU trucks will largely not be coming to the UK in few weeks. Drivers get paid by the kilometre, they don't get paid when sat in endless queues. If you go on Twitter you will see photos of signs on EU based trucks saying that they do not serve the UK. That is the new reality - we have cut ourselves off from our main supply chain counterparty. Nor can we sign a last minute EU deal to waive all tariffs and avoid the chaos. The trucks will still have to stop for inspection and paperwork. An average of 45 minues vs the current 2 minutes. Which would tie vehicles up in day long queues if the drivers and the logistics firms were stupid enough to send vehicles which they aren't.
So enjoy this last Christmas.
Dover's error was not to involve Chris Grayling, he seems to be able to access Government money for the port authorities he represents.
Dover getting £33,000 instead of £33 million looks like a clerical error, like someone forgot to alter the units when typing "33".
Nope - the government offered up something like £200m and told ports to submit their requests. More than double the available funds is pitched for so they simply slash the allocations. For legal reasons I am absolutely clear that the £100k a year paid to Chris Failing by the ports who received tens of millions was absolutely based on their need.
Remember - the ministers didn't understand why Dover - Calais was important and they still don't. They - and their PB parrots - keep squawking on about Australia or Canada despite neither of these countries having remotely the volume of truck crossings as we do. A solution that will work for EU - Canada will not work for EU - UK.
Anyway its all a bit academic now. The final deliveries to the UK are being made. After that we have the glorious problem of only being able to avoid border chaos by throtting the flow to perhaps 10% of normal. Some car companies are air freighting in key components to keep their production going - that isn't remotely sustainable.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
You can inspect your credit record directly (or indirectly through the MSE service) and it would be worth doing so just to check there hasn't been some very recent irregular activity.
Applications in themselves can affect scoring, so I am assuming you haven't applied for lots of other loans/cards/accounts recently?
'Three-figure income'?
I checked - still excellent. The only negative points listed are that they don't think i'm on the electoral register (I am, but not the public one) and I don't have a mortgage. (3-figure - £125K.)
NS&I may be the answer, but the main purpose of the savings is to help a vulnerable relative to buy a house so I can't tie them down. When I klast looked the NS&I schemes had changed so you had to tie down for 2 years. Hadn't thought of premium bonds though.
Anyway, thanks everyone!
My finances are on a tiny scale compared to yours, but nevertheless I have always been solvent and, like you, was very surprised to find an application rejected because of credit rating.
The answer that was eventually given to me was that paying off my credit card bill in full every month meant that I had no history of managing debt, which seems to be a demerit in terms of credit rating.
Good morning, everyone.
If you pay off credit cards in full every month (as you should do) you are not a profitable client to the cc company. If they can ascertain at the application stage that you are that sort of customer they may well reject your application.
What they are after is customers who: 1) have means and 2) are not financially astute. These are the profitable ones.
Problem gambling is something I hadn't come across before until one day a couple of years ago someone close to me called and asked if we could meet. Their partner had gambled £29,000. It was apparently a simple thing that could be done on a mobile phone. I wasn't really interested in the mechanics. Apparently he had been a bit depressed and it quickly mounted up. He had and has a good job. I took the view that it was only money and it could be sorted. Their relationship was a matter for them and as far as I know it's never happened again. But I never thought to blame the online bookies whoever they were or whatever the game they had peddled but the big question for me was how he managed to get that sort of credit so easily
My friend with the gambling problem is dead now, dying at the age of 50 from his other vice of smoking.
I knew him from school, his family being farmworkers, who lived in a mobile home in a field with no plumbing. He left school to work in a tractor repair shop aged 16. The poorest family that I have ever known personally.
He was intelligent, and while the rest of our group carried on at school, he was the one earning so the only one with money. We occasionally would have the odd poker game, but his real addiction was fruit machines. Each Friday and Saturday night he would buy some ciggies and put his wages in the fruit machine. He didn't drink or take drugs like the rest of us, so selective in his addictions. Then he would live off his girlfriend for a week, before his next paypacket, pay her back, then straight to the fruit machines again. It was a xsource of constant arguments between them, though he was a kind and gentle soul otherwise. This went on for some years before I went abroad and lost touch for a few decades.
Internet gambling is so accessible and instant that it would be catnip to such a personality.
Though I know of addictive gambling and I agree that your story sounds more typical if my brush with it told me anything it's that that's not what it was. When the story was tearfully poured out I was terrified that he'd got this terrible 'addiction' about which I knew little. But I'm guessing it was more naive than that and it was very brief.
Apparently a few of his friends played the same game(?) and my interest (his partner) and the partners of these other guys thought nothing of it. It was just fun. No real money involved. Maybe he was just unlucky because in no time there was the big confession and they had to remortgage the house. I felt it was an expensive mistake and not an addiction and I was grateful for that.
Roger, not so simple if you don't have a house to remortgage and get out easily.
That's true but I guess that he wouldn't have got that amount of credit if he hadn't. It was just about a year's salary which is very significant
I`m seeing an old friend today who - I know for sure - will be boring the heck out of me with the conspiracy theory that "they" (he may finger Bill Gates) have put microchips in the vaccines.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
No. Consider the NFC chip in credit cards, for instance, where the power is provided by the device that reads them.
Good point, but how large would that power source in any device need to be? If I dissected an old credit card, how big would that source be?
I`m seeing an old friend today who - I know for sure - will be boring the heck out of me with the conspiracy theory that "they" (he may finger Bill Gates) have put microchips in the vaccines.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
As many have said above, the obvious one is “why bother? They can already do everything they want with your phone.”
Jesus are we so far down the post-truth hole that we’re angry that a committee said No Deal was a bad idea
How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?
I suspect that you are actually correct. However, the Committee rather than showing Johnson's hand of all the cards, are nervous that he might accidentally fall into no deal Brexit over a handful of mackerel.
That is ultimately the PM's decision.
As it always was.
This is like an incredibly protracted corporate deal, which it is essential for the company to conclude, getting down to a handful of the toughest issues - and then a couple of the non-execs issue a public report criticising your negotiations to date and telling you - and the Board - "Just sign the bloody deal on offer. You will never get anything better."
With whom do you think the shareholders are going to be pissed off?
It’s only ‘like’ a corporate deal in the same way it’s like any number of unsatisfactory analogies that have been put forward.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
You can inspect your credit record directly (or indirectly through the MSE service) and it would be worth doing so just to check there hasn't been some very recent irregular activity.
Applications in themselves can affect scoring, so I am assuming you haven't applied for lots of other loans/cards/accounts recently?
'Three-figure income'?
I checked - still excellent. The only negative points listed are that they don't think i'm on the electoral register (I am, but not the public one) and I don't have a mortgage. (3-figure - £125K.)
NS&I may be the answer, but the main purpose of the savings is to help a vulnerable relative to buy a house so I can't tie them down. When I klast looked the NS&I schemes had changed so you had to tie down for 2 years. Hadn't thought of premium bonds though.
Anyway, thanks everyone!
My finances are on a tiny scale compared to yours, but nevertheless I have always been solvent and, like you, was very surprised to find an application rejected because of credit rating.
The answer that was eventually given to me was that paying off my credit card bill in full every month meant that I had no history of managing debt, which seems to be a demerit in terms of credit rating.
Good morning, everyone.
I was turned down for my first mobile phone for that reason. I had to get my bank to write a letter saying I was in good standing with them
How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?
Once again Brexiteers outraged by a statement of the bleeding obvious.
We need a deal. It must be done now.
Neither of these statements is controversial, unless your head is up your ass.
But "it must be done now" is only because the Johnson/Cummings/Gove dream team refuse to even consider an additional extension due to the covid crisis.
Any half rational person facing the situation we are in would roll these discussions on until this time next year. It would still be completed well in time for 2024 when Johnson faces the voters again.
We needed a deal months ago. Even if one materialises tomorrow Q1 21 will be fucked.
Yep. When the deal is announced it will be clear it could easily have been done months ago. The last minute shenanigans aspect - and maintaining the public and commentariat fear of no deal - is to help Johnson politically. It will create relief and the optics of battling to the wire with the EU and late concessions being wrung. Also a deal announced a long time before end of Transition would have given more time for critical scrutiny of the detail, not something Johnson would welcome. So, sure, it makes sense from Johnson's point of view to do things this way. It's objectively crazy, though, and unfair on many people. As you say, and as Rochdale's post explains, the effect is to inject the "Deal" outcome with some of the chaos of "No Deal".
I could not disagree more.
Yes a deal "could" have been agreed months ago but more importantly one "could not" as without time pressure neither side would compromise. It is why to do it any other way is objectively crazy because to do it any other way means like May/Robbins you're the only one that compromises.
Asking for an extension as rottenborough and others have suggested is crazy too because again it would just remove the pressure and the can would be kicked.
I don't often agree with Guy Verhofstadt but completely agree with him the other day when he said compromises are only ever made at the last minute and "if you give extra time to politicians they will take all that extra time and still only compromise at the last minute".
I`m seeing an old friend today who - I know for sure - will be boring the heck out of me with the conspiracy theory that "they" (he may finger Bill Gates) have put microchips in the vaccines.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
No. Consider the NFC chip in credit cards, for instance, where the power is provided by the device that reads them.
Good point, but how large would that power source in any device need to be? If I dissected an old credit card, how big would that source be?
No that is John's point, the power source is not in the chip it is in the reader. This is how RFID chips work in cards or passports. But they only have a short range.
But again to repeat what has already been said, why bother when there are so many other ways to track someone which can identify the specific individual (such as the aforementioned cards or phones)
I`m seeing an old friend today who - I know for sure - will be boring the heck out of me with the conspiracy theory that "they" (he may finger Bill Gates) have put microchips in the vaccines.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
No. Consider the NFC chip in credit cards, for instance, where the power is provided by the device that reads them.
Good point, but how large would that power source in any device need to be? If I dissected an old credit card, how big would that source be?
There is no power source in the credit card. The NFC chip is in the card. The power source is in the card-reader. You can cut out the chip from your card and stick it to the end of a magic wand, or implant it under your skin so you can pay for your shopping with a wave of your hand.
ETA implanting an NFC chip under your skin will not necessarily convince your friend that it is impossible to inject chips along with the vaccine!
BBC News - Caliphate: NY Times loses awards for Islamic State podcast over false reporting
It said at least one photo posted on his social media, allegedly showing him in Syria, was a copy of widely available news photography, published by Russian news agency Tass. Other images had been posted on Twitter by Syrian anti-war activists years before his claim.
According to the Times, Canadian and US officials have said they are confident Mr Chaudry is a fabulist who never travelled to Syria, and concocted stories to escape from his more mundane life in a Toronto suburb
With regards to Marquee's snarl about the Brexit committee - surely Benn saying what is self-evident upsetting people like you IS the story.
In diplomacy world you can negotiate up until the deadline which is New Year's Eve. In trading world the deadline is in the past. No deal was agreed so no deal is in effect. There is a small window of opportunity to try and shift stuff across the border before the threatened tariffs kick in and before the real standards and customs checks start. Combine that with the impacts of Covid and the usual logistical challenge of Christmas and our borders are essentially under siege.
Here's the key point. For days now we have seen vast queues of vehicles heading both for the channel AND the Irish Sea, with a similar queue in France. When these vehicles arrive at the port they have to do no paperwork. No standards checks. No customs inspections. I'm sure that processing time will have slowed a little from the usual couple of minutes but its still fast when you eventually get there. At an external EU border with full customs the checks take an average of 45 minutes. Which is why the queues often are 20 hours plus on either side of the border.
We can't take back control of the French border and the Kent queues are for vehicles which will be checked and inspected in France. Our own border needs emergency funding to try to be ready for JULY - Dover asked for £33m and was given one-THOUSANDTH of the funds - £33k. Saying that we are not ready for something which has already been actualised and is causing utter chaos is like pointing at the blue sky and correctly saying it is blue. Hardly something for Brexity alt-fact people to get upset about yet upset they are.
EU trucks will largely not be coming to the UK in few weeks. Drivers get paid by the kilometre, they don't get paid when sat in endless queues. If you go on Twitter you will see photos of signs on EU based trucks saying that they do not serve the UK. That is the new reality - we have cut ourselves off from our main supply chain counterparty. Nor can we sign a last minute EU deal to waive all tariffs and avoid the chaos. The trucks will still have to stop for inspection and paperwork. An average of 45 minues vs the current 2 minutes. Which would tie vehicles up in day long queues if the drivers and the logistics firms were stupid enough to send vehicles which they aren't.
So enjoy this last Christmas.
Dover's error was not to involve Chris Grayling, he seems to be able to access Government money for the port authorities he represents.
Dover getting £33,000 instead of £33 million looks like a clerical error, like someone forgot to alter the units when typing "33".
Nope - the government offered up something like £200m and told ports to submit their requests. More than double the available funds is pitched for so they simply slash the allocations. For legal reasons I am absolutely clear that the £100k a year paid to Chris Failing by the ports who received tens of millions was absolutely based on their need.
Remember - the ministers didn't understand why Dover - Calais was important and they still don't. They - and their PB parrots - keep squawking on about Australia or Canada despite neither of these countries having remotely the volume of truck crossings as we do. A solution that will work for EU - Canada will not work for EU - UK.
Anyway its all a bit academic now. The final deliveries to the UK are being made. After that we have the glorious problem of only being able to avoid border chaos by throtting the flow to perhaps 10% of normal. Some car companies are air freighting in key components to keep their production going - that isn't remotely sustainable.
Isn't there likely to be a problem with air freight as well?
I`m seeing an old friend today who - I know for sure - will be boring the heck out of me with the conspiracy theory that "they" (he may finger Bill Gates) have put microchips in the vaccines.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
The best retort I have seen is to list all the ways they can already track you if they were so minded (credit cards, social media, phones etc) and then ask why they would need to spend all that money on a vaccine to do what they can already do much more easily.
And for thatr matter, how does the chip know whom it inhabits? It's not as if they program the chip before injecting it. They just take a few drops out of the phial at a time (AIUI).
I was trying to work out how to say this for my second paragraph but gave up in the end. You do it very succinctly. The whole idea that vaccines could be used for mass monitoring of individuals is idiotic.
This conversation made me wonder how big the sort of chip you put in your pet is. Seems Fido gets something ther size of a grain of rice - so even if it is lurking in the metal needle the vaccine needle will be obviously too small to contain it.
And that would be dictated by the need to have it stay static. You don't want it floating about in the blood and getting jammed in the heart valves or coronary artery or brain arteriole.
I`m seeing an old friend today who - I know for sure - will be boring the heck out of me with the conspiracy theory that "they" (he may finger Bill Gates) have put microchips in the vaccines.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
No. Consider the NFC chip in credit cards, for instance, where the power is provided by the device that reads them.
Good point, but how large would that power source in any device need to be? If I dissected an old credit card, how big would that source be?
There is no power source in the credit card. The NFC chip is in the card. The power source is in the card-reader. You can cut out the chip from your card and stick it to the end of a magic wand, or implant it under your skin so you can pay for your shopping with a wave of your hand.
ETA implanting an NFC chip under your skin will not necessarily convince your friend that it is impossible to inject chips along with the vaccine!
You could point him at this on the BBC: ' "Covid-19 immunity boosters" are being sold over the counter in London shops, a BBC investigation has found.'
I find it interesting that NYT staff were happy to give a voice to a (fake) ISIS fighter, but not to an elected US official. And a NYT staffer lost their job for the later, but not the former.
BBC News - Caliphate: NY Times loses awards for Islamic State podcast over false reporting
It said at least one photo posted on his social media, allegedly showing him in Syria, was a copy of widely available news photography, published by Russian news agency Tass. Other images had been posted on Twitter by Syrian anti-war activists years before his claim.
According to the Times, Canadian and US officials have said they are confident Mr Chaudry is a fabulist who never travelled to Syria, and concocted stories to escape from his more mundane life in a Toronto suburb
BBC News - Caliphate: NY Times loses awards for Islamic State podcast over false reporting
It said at least one photo posted on his social media, allegedly showing him in Syria, was a copy of widely available news photography, published by Russian news agency Tass. Other images had been posted on Twitter by Syrian anti-war activists years before his claim.
According to the Times, Canadian and US officials have said they are confident Mr Chaudry is a fabulist who never travelled to Syria, and concocted stories to escape from his more mundane life in a Toronto suburb
BBC News - Caliphate: NY Times loses awards for Islamic State podcast over false reporting
It said at least one photo posted on his social media, allegedly showing him in Syria, was a copy of widely available news photography, published by Russian news agency Tass. Other images had been posted on Twitter by Syrian anti-war activists years before his claim.
According to the Times, Canadian and US officials have said they are confident Mr Chaudry is a fabulist who never travelled to Syria, and concocted stories to escape from his more mundane life in a Toronto suburb
The thing is he isn't wrong. Well he is, as in his claims of fake news, are normally when it is just calling out his lies, but NYT, MSNBC, and CNN have run so many absolute bullshit stories as they have become so mental over Trump presidency they have lost the ability to stand back and think about what it is they are reporting. Too quick to believe something because it is bad about Trump, not if the facts add up.
How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?
Once again Brexiteers outraged by a statement of the bleeding obvious.
We need a deal. It must be done now.
Neither of these statements is controversial, unless your head is up your ass.
But "it must be done now" is only because the Johnson/Cummings/Gove dream team refuse to even consider an additional extension due to the covid crisis.
Any half rational person facing the situation we are in would roll these discussions on until this time next year. It would still be completed well in time for 2024 when Johnson faces the voters again.
We needed a deal months ago. Even if one materialises tomorrow Q1 21 will be fucked.
Yep. When the deal is announced it will be clear it could easily have been done months ago. The last minute shenanigans aspect - and maintaining the public and commentariat fear of no deal - is to help Johnson politically. It will create relief and the optics of battling to the wire with the EU and late concessions being wrung. Also a deal announced a long time before end of Transition would have given more time for critical scrutiny of the detail, not something Johnson would welcome. So, sure, it makes sense from Johnson's point of view to do things this way. It's objectively crazy, though, and unfair on many people. As you say, and as Rochdale's post explains, the effect is to inject the "Deal" outcome with some of the chaos of "No Deal".
I could not disagree more.
Yes a deal "could" have been agreed months ago but more importantly one "could not" as without time pressure neither side would compromise. It is why to do it any other way is objectively crazy because to do it any other way means like May/Robbins you're the only one that compromises.
Asking for an extension as rottenborough and others have suggested is crazy too because again it would just remove the pressure and the can would be kicked.
I don't often agree with Guy Verhofstadt but completely agree with him the other day when he said compromises are only ever made at the last minute and "if you give extra time to politicians they will take all that extra time and still only compromise at the last minute".
No - THIS deal could have been done months ago. The reason it wasn't is primarily for the reasons I explained.
Problem gambling is something I hadn't come across before until one day a couple of years ago someone close to me called and asked if we could meet. Their partner had gambled £29,000. It was apparently a simple thing that could be done on a mobile phone. I wasn't really interested in the mechanics. Apparently he had been a bit depressed and it quickly mounted up. He had and has a good job. I took the view that it was only money and it could be sorted. Their relationship was a matter for them and as far as I know it's never happened again. But I never thought to blame the online bookies whoever they were or whatever the game they had peddled but the big question for me was how he managed to get that sort of credit so easily
My friend with the gambling problem is dead now, dying at the age of 50 from his other vice of smoking.
I knew him from school, his family being farmworkers, who lived in a mobile home in a field with no plumbing. He left school to work in a tractor repair shop aged 16. The poorest family that I have ever known personally.
He was intelligent, and while the rest of our group carried on at school, he was the one earning so the only one with money. We occasionally would have the odd poker game, but his real addiction was fruit machines. Each Friday and Saturday night he would buy some ciggies and put his wages in the fruit machine. He didn't drink or take drugs like the rest of us, so selective in his addictions. Then he would live off his girlfriend for a week, before his next paypacket, pay her back, then straight to the fruit machines again. It was a xsource of constant arguments between them, though he was a kind and gentle soul otherwise. This went on for some years before I went abroad and lost touch for a few decades.
Internet gambling is so accessible and instant that it would be catnip to such a personality.
Though I know of addictive gambling and I agree that your story sounds more typical if my brush with it told me anything it's that that's not what it was. When the story was tearfully poured out I was terrified that he'd got this terrible 'addiction' about which I knew little. But I'm guessing it was more naive than that and it was very brief.
Apparently a few of his friends played the same game(?) and my interest (his partner) and the partners of these other guys thought nothing of it. It was just fun. No real money involved. Maybe he was just unlucky because in no time there was the big confession and they had to remortgage the house. I felt it was an expensive mistake and not an addiction and I was grateful for that.
Roger, not so simple if you don't have a house to remortgage and get out easily.
That's true but I guess that he wouldn't have got that amount of credit if he hadn't. It was just about a year's salary which is very significant
I have bet on the horses since I was a teenager , used to mark the odds back in the old days when I was a boy and the bookie's had a coal fire. Never got out of hand betting though , I like an interest but not losing big sums. Saw plenty that lost their lot regularly though at cards and horses. Tragic for many families who are mainly the ones that suffer.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
You can inspect your credit record directly (or indirectly through the MSE service) and it would be worth doing so just to check there hasn't been some very recent irregular activity.
Applications in themselves can affect scoring, so I am assuming you haven't applied for lots of other loans/cards/accounts recently?
'Three-figure income'?
I checked - still excellent. The only negative points listed are that they don't think i'm on the electoral register (I am, but not the public one) and I don't have a mortgage. (3-figure - £125K.)
NS&I may be the answer, but the main purpose of the savings is to help a vulnerable relative to buy a house so I can't tie them down. When I klast looked the NS&I schemes had changed so you had to tie down for 2 years. Hadn't thought of premium bonds though.
Anyway, thanks everyone!
My finances are on a tiny scale compared to yours, but nevertheless I have always been solvent and, like you, was very surprised to find an application rejected because of credit rating.
The answer that was eventually given to me was that paying off my credit card bill in full every month meant that I had no history of managing debt, which seems to be a demerit in terms of credit rating.
Good morning, everyone.
I was turned down for my first mobile phone for that reason. I had to get my bank to write a letter saying I was in good standing with them
LOL , even though you owned the bank, sounds like a tall tale.
How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?
Once again Brexiteers outraged by a statement of the bleeding obvious.
We need a deal. It must be done now.
Neither of these statements is controversial, unless your head is up your ass.
But "it must be done now" is only because the Johnson/Cummings/Gove dream team refuse to even consider an additional extension due to the covid crisis.
Any half rational person facing the situation we are in would roll these discussions on until this time next year. It would still be completed well in time for 2024 when Johnson faces the voters again.
We needed a deal months ago. Even if one materialises tomorrow Q1 21 will be fucked.
Yep. When the deal is announced it will be clear it could easily have been done months ago. The last minute shenanigans aspect - and maintaining the public and commentariat fear of no deal - is to help Johnson politically. It will create relief and the optics of battling to the wire with the EU and late concessions being wrung. Also a deal announced a long time before end of Transition would have given more time for critical scrutiny of the detail, not something Johnson would welcome. So, sure, it makes sense from Johnson's point of view to do things this way. It's objectively crazy, though, and unfair on many people. As you say, and as Rochdale's post explains, the effect is to inject the "Deal" outcome with some of the chaos of "No Deal".
I could not disagree more.
Yes a deal "could" have been agreed months ago but more importantly one "could not" as without time pressure neither side would compromise. It is why to do it any other way is objectively crazy because to do it any other way means like May/Robbins you're the only one that compromises.
Asking for an extension as rottenborough and others have suggested is crazy too because again it would just remove the pressure and the can would be kicked.
I don't often agree with Guy Verhofstadt but completely agree with him the other day when he said compromises are only ever made at the last minute and "if you give extra time to politicians they will take all that extra time and still only compromise at the last minute".
I actually agree with kinabalu and have little doubt that Boris is playing high stakes politics
However, I absolutely do agree that those seeking further extensions would only achieve stalemate again down the line so while I am not one of Boris's greatest fans he is correct to draw an end to this on the 31st December and 'whatever will be, will be'
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
Double triple check the spelling of your name, address, house number and date of birth on the application. It's the most common cause of credit rejection.
If you have a steady full-time job, have lived in the same house for at least 3 years and have a good credit rating it is ridiculously easy to instantly get loans and liquidity.
I tapped a few numbers in on TSB's website on Tuesday morning and had £8k in my bank account by Wednesday afternoon at only 2.8% interest*. All the interest will barely cost £200 over 2 years so the opportunity cost is very low. In fact, I'd probably make money sticking it in a stocks &shares ISA
(*It's to pay off a car loan and help fund a new bathroom, if you must know.)
Jesus are we so far down the post-truth hole that we’re angry that a committee said No Deal was a bad idea
How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?
I suspect that you are actually correct. However, the Committee rather than showing Johnson's hand of all the cards, are nervous that he might accidentally fall into no deal Brexit over a handful of mackerel.
That is ultimately the PM's decision.
As it always was.
This is like an incredibly protracted corporate deal, which it is essential for the company to conclude, getting down to a handful of the toughest issues - and then a couple of the non-execs issue a public report criticising your negotiations to date and telling you - and the Board - "Just sign the bloody deal on offer. You will never get anything better."
With whom do you think the shareholders are going to be pissed off?
There was the old saying when quoting for a job that if you get it be thankful because only you know you'd have done it for half and only they know they'd have paid double.
That's the question. Is this a negotiation where the "price" is unknown, and haggling could double or halve it? Then all the messing around could be worthwhile. Or is the price what it is to within a few quid, and we're risking everything to get a free air freshener?
I suspect Brexit fans (including the UK government) think it's the first, and former Remainers (and the EU) think the game is the second. Hence some of the mutual incomprehension.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
You can inspect your credit record directly (or indirectly through the MSE service) and it would be worth doing so just to check there hasn't been some very recent irregular activity.
Applications in themselves can affect scoring, so I am assuming you haven't applied for lots of other loans/cards/accounts recently?
'Three-figure income'?
I checked - still excellent. The only negative points listed are that they don't think i'm on the electoral register (I am, but not the public one) and I don't have a mortgage. (3-figure - £125K.)
NS&I may be the answer, but the main purpose of the savings is to help a vulnerable relative to buy a house so I can't tie them down. When I klast looked the NS&I schemes had changed so you had to tie down for 2 years. Hadn't thought of premium bonds though.
Anyway, thanks everyone!
My finances are on a tiny scale compared to yours, but nevertheless I have always been solvent and, like you, was very surprised to find an application rejected because of credit rating.
The answer that was eventually given to me was that paying off my credit card bill in full every month meant that I had no history of managing debt, which seems to be a demerit in terms of credit rating.
Good morning, everyone.
I was turned down for my first mobile phone for that reason. I had to get my bank to write a letter saying I was in good standing with them
LOL , even though you owned the bank, sounds like a tall tale.
I was 19 and didn’t have a credit record because any borrowing I needed was done in house
Something that has been a article of faith amongst Covid Deniers is that Lockdown has lead to a spike in suicides. They haven't based this on any actual data, it's is just something they have intuited because they don't like lockdown so there must be bad effects.
It takes a fair while to gather data on suicides and the ONS has been cautious about releasing the data due to a backlog of Coroner's cases but we now have a decent look at the previous year, no Q4 data yet obviously. Figures given as raw numbers and age-standardised per 100,000 figure in brackets
5-year average to 2019 Q1 - 1134 (9.5) Q2 - 1195 (9.9) Q3 - 1240 (10.2)
Suicides in general have been trending up over the last 10 years but the key thing is that absolutely massive dip in the 2020 Q2 figures with no "bounce back" in Q3.
Obviously these numbers are subject to revision, 2020's numbers were only recently declared final, but compared to 2019 suicides are down overall so far with lockdown have a positive impact.
Suicides trending up over the last 10 years you say? Strokes chin.
Jesus are we so far down the post-truth hole that we’re angry that a committee said No Deal was a bad idea
How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?
Timing? When people pointed out that issue 4 YEARS AGO, they were shouted down and told that "We hold all the cards" and "The EU needs us more than we need them". Benn's report is not exactly a revelation.
I`m seeing an old friend today who - I know for sure - will be boring the heck out of me with the conspiracy theory that "they" (he may finger Bill Gates) have put microchips in the vaccines.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
The best retort I have seen is to list all the ways they can already track you if they were so minded (credit cards, social media, phones etc) and then ask why they would need to spend all that money on a vaccine to do what they can already do much more easily.
And for thatr matter, how does the chip know whom it inhabits? It's not as if they program the chip before injecting it. They just take a few drops out of the phial at a time (AIUI).
Ah, but the nano-bot device would be pre-loaded into each NEEDLE - which they clearly can't re-use... Nothing to do with the phial.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
You can inspect your credit record directly (or indirectly through the MSE service) and it would be worth doing so just to check there hasn't been some very recent irregular activity.
Applications in themselves can affect scoring, so I am assuming you haven't applied for lots of other loans/cards/accounts recently?
'Three-figure income'?
I checked - still excellent. The only negative points listed are that they don't think i'm on the electoral register (I am, but not the public one) and I don't have a mortgage. (3-figure - £125K.)
NS&I may be the answer, but the main purpose of the savings is to help a vulnerable relative to buy a house so I can't tie them down. When I klast looked the NS&I schemes had changed so you had to tie down for 2 years. Hadn't thought of premium bonds though.
Anyway, thanks everyone!
My finances are on a tiny scale compared to yours, but nevertheless I have always been solvent and, like you, was very surprised to find an application rejected because of credit rating.
The answer that was eventually given to me was that paying off my credit card bill in full every month meant that I had no history of managing debt, which seems to be a demerit in terms of credit rating.
Good morning, everyone.
I was turned down for my first mobile phone for that reason. I had to get my bank to write a letter saying I was in good standing with them
LOL , even though you owned the bank, sounds like a tall tale.
I understand, Malc, that the Duke of Westminster finds it impossible to get a credit card.
This was not a result Trump wanted. A harder-working president might even have thwarted it. But in this one crucial respect, Trump’s legendary laziness has left the world a cleaner and greener place
"The gambling known as business looks with austere disfavor upon the business known as gambling." Ambrose Bierce.
Agree with Alistair on the header. I don't know who is taking the other side of my betfair bets... or why they are being made. The recent misprice on Brian Rose for Mayor is plausibly his campaign trying to generate a 2nd favourite tag.
The Brian Rose price is as mysterious as the Le Pen price. I know sod all about the London Mayor race but I have went and laid Rose much like I knew sod all about the French Presidential race but I backed Macron in round 2.
I think it's slightly different between the two.
Alistair Meeks shrewdly noted a trend of people betting on right/far-right candidates in Europe... perhaps because they are the only one people have heard about and so they stick a few quid on, driving down the price.
It's also conceivable that there is a betting community that would like Le Pen to win and so are voting with their heart. I followed him on this theory and won a bit in a Swedish election as well as on Macron/Le Pen.
With Brian Rose, I have literally never heard of him and I don't think anyone else had either. I think it's plausible it's him I am betting against.
I wonder if they have a newer more virulent variation too.
It's definitely possible. I didn't believe the stories about it but I'm starting to think there's something in it now. If it is true then the government are being incredibly negligent by allowing travel into and out of London from the rest of the country. London is seeing a huge surge in hospital admissions, we're lucky to have the capacity to handle it, if this strain spreads to the rest of the country in the five day free pass it's going to cause hospitals to be completely overrun.
I`m seeing an old friend today who - I know for sure - will be boring the heck out of me with the conspiracy theory that "they" (he may finger Bill Gates) have put microchips in the vaccines.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
The best retort I have seen is to list all the ways they can already track you if they were so minded (credit cards, social media, phones etc) and then ask why they would need to spend all that money on a vaccine to do what they can already do much more easily.
And for thatr matter, how does the chip know whom it inhabits? It's not as if they program the chip before injecting it. They just take a few drops out of the phial at a time (AIUI).
It’s actually a miniaturised submarine crewed by woke secret police reporting back on all the ghastly things we get up to. Bagsy Raquel Welch for my sub.
I`m seeing an old friend today who - I know for sure - will be boring the heck out of me with the conspiracy theory that "they" (he may finger Bill Gates) have put microchips in the vaccines.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
The best retort I have seen is to list all the ways they can already track you if they were so minded (credit cards, social media, phones etc) and then ask why they would need to spend all that money on a vaccine to do what they can already do much more easily.
And for thatr matter, how does the chip know whom it inhabits? It's not as if they program the chip before injecting it. They just take a few drops out of the phial at a time (AIUI).
Ah, but the nano-bot device would be pre-loaded into each NEEDLE - which they clearly can't re-use... Nothing to do with the phial.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
You can inspect your credit record directly (or indirectly through the MSE service) and it would be worth doing so just to check there hasn't been some very recent irregular activity.
Applications in themselves can affect scoring, so I am assuming you haven't applied for lots of other loans/cards/accounts recently?
'Three-figure income'?
I checked - still excellent. The only negative points listed are that they don't think i'm on the electoral register (I am, but not the public one) and I don't have a mortgage. (3-figure - £125K.)
NS&I may be the answer, but the main purpose of the savings is to help a vulnerable relative to buy a house so I can't tie them down. When I klast looked the NS&I schemes had changed so you had to tie down for 2 years. Hadn't thought of premium bonds though.
Anyway, thanks everyone!
My finances are on a tiny scale compared to yours, but nevertheless I have always been solvent and, like you, was very surprised to find an application rejected because of credit rating.
The answer that was eventually given to me was that paying off my credit card bill in full every month meant that I had no history of managing debt, which seems to be a demerit in terms of credit rating.
Good morning, everyone.
I was turned down for my first mobile phone for that reason. I had to get my bank to write a letter saying I was in good standing with them
LOL , even though you owned the bank, sounds like a tall tale.
I understand, Malc, that the Duke of Westminster finds it impossible to get a credit card.
OKC, why would he need something so common when he has lackeys to pay the merchants. These toffs would not want to get their hands dirty.
Nice reflective header. I like the anecdote about Bridge in California.
Yes, very good header but I was intrigued about the bridge reference.
I once had a friend who was a top class player at both bridge and chess. He reckoned bridge was the more skilful game.
Probably true. I am not top class at either, but every chess game starts from the same configuration of pieces and every opening variation has been analysed so much that top players are on autopilot for quite a lot of the opening moves. In Bridge, every starting hand is different and quite a lot is concealed from you.
I wonder if they have a newer more virulent variation too.
It's definitely possible. I didn't believe the stories about it but I'm starting to think there's something in it now. If it is true then the government are being incredibly negligent by allowing travel into and out of London from the rest of the country. London is seeing a huge surge in hospital admissions, we're lucky to have the capacity to handle it, if this strain spreads to the rest of the country in the five day free pass it's going to cause hospitals to be completely overrun.
I will donate for the wall to keep them in their zoo.
Something that has been a article of faith amongst Covid Deniers is that Lockdown has lead to a spike in suicides. They haven't based this on any actual data, it's is just something they have intuited because they don't like lockdown so there must be bad effects.
It takes a fair while to gather data on suicides and the ONS has been cautious about releasing the data due to a backlog of Coroner's cases but we now have a decent look at the previous year, no Q4 data yet obviously. Figures given as raw numbers and age-standardised per 100,000 figure in brackets
5-year average to 2019 Q1 - 1134 (9.5) Q2 - 1195 (9.9) Q3 - 1240 (10.2)
Suicides in general have been trending up over the last 10 years but the key thing is that absolutely massive dip in the 2020 Q2 figures with no "bounce back" in Q3.
Obviously these numbers are subject to revision, 2020's numbers were only recently declared final, but compared to 2019 suicides are down overall so far with lockdown have a positive impact.
Suicides trending up over the last 10 years you say? Strokes chin.
I`m seeing an old friend today who - I know for sure - will be boring the heck out of me with the conspiracy theory that "they" (he may finger Bill Gates) have put microchips in the vaccines.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
The best retort I have seen is to list all the ways they can already track you if they were so minded (credit cards, social media, phones etc) and then ask why they would need to spend all that money on a vaccine to do what they can already do much more easily.
And for thatr matter, how does the chip know whom it inhabits? It's not as if they program the chip before injecting it. They just take a few drops out of the phial at a time (AIUI).
Ah, but the nano-bot device would be pre-loaded into each NEEDLE - which they clearly can't re-use... Nothing to do with the phial.
(Just trying to get into the anti-vaxxer mindset.)
Already dealt with in a later comment by me! Needle would be massive ...
The needle used is 25 guage*, rather bigger than the 27 or 30 guage used for most vaccines. 🤔
Though tell your friend that his tinfoil hat will foil Bill Gates dastardly plan. Quite why Gates wants to create an electronic panopticon eludes me though. Is he another fan of Foucault?
*I think to reduce turbulence, as the vaccine is quite unstable.
I`m seeing an old friend today who - I know for sure - will be boring the heck out of me with the conspiracy theory that "they" (he may finger Bill Gates) have put microchips in the vaccines.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
The best retort I have seen is to list all the ways they can already track you if they were so minded (credit cards, social media, phones etc) and then ask why they would need to spend all that money on a vaccine to do what they can already do much more easily.
And for thatr matter, how does the chip know whom it inhabits? It's not as if they program the chip before injecting it. They just take a few drops out of the phial at a time (AIUI).
Ah, but the nano-bot device would be pre-loaded into each NEEDLE - which they clearly can't re-use... Nothing to do with the phial.
@AlastairMeeks That's a good header, thank you. I never bet myself, not a form of entertainment that appeals (nor does watching television).
I grew up in an environment where gambling was not approved - the picture I started life with was that gambling inevitably meant poverty-stricken families.
During my adult life, I learned that there are nuances. A family connection is genuinely a serious professional gambler - his family isn't poverty-stricken as he's always managed to make quite a good living from it. Then a work colleague was almost, but not quite, that professional - made quite a good thing of it but not enough to give up the day job. For me the "overcoming of qualms" has been a learning curve that's very interesting to look back on.
I found this site through an interest in politics, not gambling. I joined in 2008/2009 and in my early days here, we had a poster apparently in North America (Canada?) who claimed to have made enormous bets on something which didn't come off. That worried me a lot. He didn't post after losing and I've often wondered what became of him.
It seems to me very unethical that Betfair didn't at least suspend their market once we'd reached the original decision point in their rules. But if they had suspended it and then Trump had gone on to overcome that projected decision, what would they have done? Which side would they have ruled winners according to their own rules? It looks ridiculous now to have paid out on a Next President who didn't actually win the election, but they could have learnt from that to sharpen up the names of their markets.
I`m seeing an old friend today who - I know for sure - will be boring the heck out of me with the conspiracy theory that "they" (he may finger Bill Gates) have put microchips in the vaccines.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
The best retort I have seen is to list all the ways they can already track you if they were so minded (credit cards, social media, phones etc) and then ask why they would need to spend all that money on a vaccine to do what they can already do much more easily.
And for thatr matter, how does the chip know whom it inhabits? It's not as if they program the chip before injecting it. They just take a few drops out of the phial at a time (AIUI).
It’s actually a miniaturised submarine crewed by woke secret police reporting back on all the ghastly things we get up to. Bagsy Raquel Welch for my sub.
Note that within a few opening posts people are again being called "traitors" for pointing out the obvious.
Wanders off again.
The only people who have used the "traitor" word today are Remainers, finding it the only way to obfuscate their inability to defend the timing of the Select Committee report - because it is aimed at helping only the EU, not the UK.....
Comments
I think one way to go some way to check is to look at the offers on Money Saving Expert, and see if the Virgin ones are greyed out once you have entered your details.
Just so that I don`t lose my shit with the guy has anyone any suggestions on how to counter this ridiculous claim in a calm, succinct and science-based way? (Wouldn`t a micro chip need a power source of some sort?)
BoZo intent on endangering citizens to keep the headbangers like MarqueeMark happy...
The answer that was eventually given to me was that paying off my credit card bill in full every month meant that I had no history of managing debt, which seems to be a demerit in terms of credit rating.
Good morning, everyone.
Or just say lets talk about some other shit.
It is a cost of doing business. And there are no substitutable goods for an airline replacing a flight from Frankfurt to London
Current account business a loss leader. They looked at your profile and she and decided they couldn’t make money out of you.
Edit/ the sell position doesn't look one to hold for long, though - there are good reasons for expecting medium term $ weakness which make selling the bet less attractive. In the short term if Brexit looks problematic the £ will take a dip.
We can phrase the same findings like this: community infection levels tended to match infection levels found in local schools.
And then it looks quite damning rather than reassuring.
Remember - the ministers didn't understand why Dover - Calais was important and they still don't. They - and their PB parrots - keep squawking on about Australia or Canada despite neither of these countries having remotely the volume of truck crossings as we do. A solution that will work for EU - Canada will not work for EU - UK.
Anyway its all a bit academic now. The final deliveries to the UK are being made. After that we have the glorious problem of only being able to avoid border chaos by throtting the flow to perhaps 10% of normal. Some car companies are air freighting in key components to keep their production going - that isn't remotely sustainable.
What they are after is customers who: 1) have means and 2) are not financially astute. These are the profitable ones.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/statistics_2x.png
Yes a deal "could" have been agreed months ago but more importantly one "could not" as without time pressure neither side would compromise. It is why to do it any other way is objectively crazy because to do it any other way means like May/Robbins you're the only one that compromises.
Asking for an extension as rottenborough and others have suggested is crazy too because again it would just remove the pressure and the can would be kicked.
I don't often agree with Guy Verhofstadt but completely agree with him the other day when he said compromises are only ever made at the last minute and "if you give extra time to politicians they will take all that extra time and still only compromise at the last minute".
But again to repeat what has already been said, why bother when there are so many other ways to track someone which can identify the specific individual (such as the aforementioned cards or phones)
There's a whole sub culture here.
ETA implanting an NFC chip under your skin will not necessarily convince your friend that it is impossible to inject chips along with the vaccine!
BBC News - Caliphate: NY Times loses awards for Islamic State podcast over false reporting
It said at least one photo posted on his social media, allegedly showing him in Syria, was a copy of widely available news photography, published by Russian news agency Tass. Other images had been posted on Twitter by Syrian anti-war activists years before his claim.
According to the Times, Canadian and US officials have said they are confident Mr Chaudry is a fabulist who never travelled to Syria, and concocted stories to escape from his more mundane life in a Toronto suburb
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55375277
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchip_implant_(animal)
And that would be dictated by the need to have it stay static. You don't want it floating about in the blood and getting jammed in the heart valves or coronary artery or brain arteriole.
It does, though, emphasise that they are Fake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7XwhRhRSvo&ab_channel=placebobrazil
I once had a friend who was a top class player at both bridge and chess. He reckoned bridge was the more skilful game.
Wander in briefly to see what is going on.
Note that within a few opening posts people are again being called "traitors" for pointing out the obvious.
Wanders off again.
However, I absolutely do agree that those seeking further extensions would only achieve stalemate again down the line so while I am not one of Boris's greatest fans he is correct to draw an end to this on the 31st December and 'whatever will be, will be'
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-germany-storing-victims-in-shipping-container-as-country-grapples-with-virus-surge-12166011
I tapped a few numbers in on TSB's website on Tuesday morning and had £8k in my bank account by Wednesday afternoon at only 2.8% interest*. All the interest will barely cost £200 over 2 years so the opportunity cost is very low. In fact, I'd probably make money sticking it in a stocks &shares ISA
(*It's to pay off a car loan and help fund a new bathroom, if you must know.)
Or is the price what it is to within a few quid, and we're risking everything to get a free air freshener?
I suspect Brexit fans (including the UK government) think it's the first, and former Remainers (and the EU) think the game is the second. Hence some of the mutual incomprehension.
India collapsed to 36 all out - their lowest total in Test cricket - as Australia won the first Test in Adelaide by eight wickets.
They wrote "IBM" with individual atoms, you know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_(atoms)#:~:text=IBM in atoms was a,the three letter company initialism.
(Just trying to get into the anti-vaxxer mindset.)
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/the-things-trump-got-right/617424/
This was not a result Trump wanted. A harder-working president might even have thwarted it. But in this one crucial respect, Trump’s legendary laziness has left the world a cleaner and greener place
Alistair Meeks shrewdly noted a trend of people betting on right/far-right candidates in Europe... perhaps because they are the only one people have heard about and so they stick a few quid on, driving down the price.
It's also conceivable that there is a betting community that would like Le Pen to win and so are voting with their heart. I followed him on this theory and won a bit in a Swedish election as well as on Macron/Le Pen.
With Brian Rose, I have literally never heard of him and I don't think anyone else had either.
I think it's plausible it's him I am betting against.
Though tell your friend that his tinfoil hat will foil Bill Gates dastardly plan. Quite why Gates wants to create an electronic panopticon eludes me though. Is he another fan of Foucault?
*I think to reduce turbulence, as the vaccine is quite unstable.
I grew up in an environment where gambling was not approved - the picture I started life with was that gambling inevitably meant poverty-stricken families.
During my adult life, I learned that there are nuances. A family connection is genuinely a serious professional gambler - his family isn't poverty-stricken as he's always managed to make quite a good living from it. Then a work colleague was almost, but not quite, that professional - made quite a good thing of it but not enough to give up the day job. For me the "overcoming of qualms" has been a learning curve that's very interesting to look back on.
I found this site through an interest in politics, not gambling. I joined in 2008/2009 and in my early days here, we had a poster apparently in North America (Canada?) who claimed to have made enormous bets on something which didn't come off. That worried me a lot. He didn't post after losing and I've often wondered what became of him.
It seems to me very unethical that Betfair didn't at least suspend their market once we'd reached the original decision point in their rules. But if they had suspended it and then Trump had gone on to overcome that projected decision, what would they have done? Which side would they have ruled winners according to their own rules? It looks ridiculous now to have paid out on a Next President who didn't actually win the election, but they could have learnt from that to sharpen up the names of their markets.